Something to think about on St Patrick's Day

Something to think about on St Patrick's Day:

Fear not, dear readers. I'll be giving it a great deal of thought beginning later this afternoon, and later this evening at a medium-sized private gathering. Better start practising my singing now, methinks.

Spiked Magazine's Mick Hume lays out the chief reason for British politicians embracing the politics of warming -- he could just as easily have been writing about New Zealand:

The major parties have all gravitated towards greenery on global warming because they lack any political principles of their own.

With their public standing at an all-time low, politicians are attracted to the issue of climate change because it allows them to scramble out of the mire and back on to the moral high ground. Rather than fending off endless allegations of sleaze or trying to explain why they cannot run a decent health service, Blair and Brown are set free to make portentous speeches about saving the planet. And instead of tackling the tricky issues of coming up with alternative policies on the economy or Iraq, Cameron can strike statesmanlike poses while hugging a glacier.

For "Blair and Brow" read "carbon neutral" Clark. For "hugging a glacier" Cameron read John "Al Gore pushed all my buttons" Key. But Hume hasn't finished. The bids by Clark, Key, Blair and Brown to out-boast each other, in Annie-Get Your Gun style, ignores that what is strangled by fatuous boasts to ration airline travel and to cut emissions by sixty percent is human activity and human industry.

Leave aside for now the vexed and complex question of the actual science of climate change. I am no climatologist, but then you surely do not need to be to see that the simplistic, conformist politics of global warming are about something else. Even if we were to accept that some of the far-reaching expert predictions about climate change were true, there would be no necessary straight line from those scientists’ estimates to the sort of policies now being proposed by Brown or David Miliband or Cameron. Instead, they are using the language of science to express their own politics of low expectations and policing our behaviour.

When humanity has been faced with great challenges in history, the solution has been to go forward, to apply human ingenuity and endeavour to overcoming problems by advancing society. There is no record of tackling future problems by going backwards or restraining development. Yet that is what is effectively proposed through the politics of global warming.

As George Reisman puts it, the action that is proposed by governments to tackle this questionable problem is not in fact action, it is government action intended to stop private action. The ideas underpinning this cross-party shackling of human life and human fecundity are, as Mick Hume points out, "deeply conservative, backward, and reactionary."

To challenge them is not a job for scientific inquiry, since that is not really what such prejudices are based upon, but for political argument. The pressing need is to recast notions of human agency, and develop a future-oriented vision based on a belief in our ability to tackle problems through economic and social advance.

For starters, here is one straightforward historical idea that might sound ‘revolutionary’ today: the more control humanity is able to exercise over nature, and the larger the ‘footprint’ we make on the planet, the better the future is likely to be.

This issue will never be resolved in one brainy evening, even one as pointed and personal as this. In the previous five IQ2 U.S. debates, there hadn't been all that much mind-changing in the room. But this time, there was. Before the debate, not-a-crisis got 30 percent of the vote. After, the number rose to 46 percent. The is-a-crisis tally dropped from 57 to 42. The undecideds dipped slightly, from 13 to 12.

Oddly enough, one of the warmist participants' blog accounts is more subdued than the other accounts. "So are such debates worthwhile? On balance, I'd probably answer no," concluded Real Climate blogger and NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt, voted by the audience to be on the losing side on Wednesday.

Arguing for the motion, that global warming is not a crisis, were author Michael Crichton, British biogeographer Philip Stott, and MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen. Ranged against them were warmist scientists Brenda Ekwurzel, Richard C.J. Somerville, and our friend Mr Schmidt. Notes the Senate EPW blog, who look forward to Al Gore appearing before them next week to testify on global warming:

Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis”, but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view...

After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting the belief in a climate "crisis" appeared toconcededefeat by noting his debate team was ‘pretty dull" and at "a sharp disadvantage" against the skeptics.ScientificAmerican.com’s blog agreed, saying the believers in a man-made climate catastrophe “seemed underarmed for the debate and, not surprising, it swung ag ainst them."

The New York City audience laughed as Gore became the butt of humor during the debate.

"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his house. But it is a very serious point," quipped University of London emeritus professor Philip Stott to laughter from the audience.

The audience also applauded a call by novelist Michael Crichton to stop the hypocrisy of environmentalists and Hollywood liberals by enacting a ban on private jet travel.

"Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the [power] grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously?" Crichton said to applause audience.

"The proponents [of a climate crisis] seemed underarmed for the debate and, not surprisingly, it swung against them, particularly when Schmidt made the fatal debating error of dismissing the ability of the audience to judge the scientific nuances," ScientificAmerican.com’s David Biello wrote. The advocates of climate alarmism "were faced with the folksy anecdotes of Crichton and the oratorical fire of Stott," Biello wrote at ScientificAmerican.com. Biello concluded, "…the audience responded to Crichton's satirical call for a ban on private jets more than Ekwurzel's vague we need to throw ‘everything we can at the climate crisis.’

By the final vote, 46 percent of the audience had been convinced that global warming was indeed not a crisis, while just 42 percent persisted in their opinion that it was." Biello also criticized climate "crisis" advocate Richard Somerville as "perplexed" and "hardly inspiring."

Some money quotes from the winning team:

LINDZEN: "Now, much of the current alarm, I would suggest, is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate."

"The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about five kilometers. And that is going up even slower than the temperature at the surface."

CHRICHTON: "I mean, haven’t we actually raised temperatures so much that we, as stewards of the planet, have to act? These are the questions that friends of mine ask as they are getting on board their private jets to fly to their second and third homes.

"Everyday 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty. There are, a third of the planet doesn’t have electricity. We have a billion people with no clean water. We have half a billion people going to bed hungry every night. Do we care about this? It seems that we don’t. It seems that we would rather look a hundred years into the future than pay attention to what’s going on now. I think that's unacceptable. I think that’s really a disgrace."

STOTT: "The first Earth Day in America claimed the following, that because of global cooling, the population of America would have collapsed to 22 million by the year 2000. And of the average calorie intake of the average American would be wait for this, 2,400 calories, would good it were. [LAUGHTER] It’s nonsense and very dangerous. And what we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes."

"Angela Merkel the German chancellor, my own good prime minister (Tony Blair) for whom I voted -- let me emphasize, arguing in public two weeks ago as to who in Annie get the gun style could produce the best temperature. ‘I could do two degrees C said Angela.’ ‘No, I could only do three said Tony.’ [LAUGHTER] Stand back a minute, those are politicians, telling you that they can control climate to a degree Celsius.”

“And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change. Well let’s use an engineer; I don’t think I’d want to cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only understood 80% of the forces on that bridge."

UPDATE 1: More comments on the debate, this one from an audience member:

I attended it, and must say that the characterization recently distributed which described Crichton, Stott, et. al. as being "humorous" and "entertaining" is false. They were cogent and salient and stuck to the facts (though Stott indeed has an engaging preachy style). Lindzen of course was dry and direct with no attempts at humor. Crichton did talk about enviros and their jets etc., but he talked much more about science, epistemology, his own conversion to skepticism, and the need to prioritize enviro/social ills. It was the other side that attempted (unsuccessfully) to be entertaining and wax poetically, by describing earth as a human-body-like organism, and by characterizing global warming investigation as an episode from "CSI." The bloggers were right about who won, but wrong about how and why they won.

UPDATE 3: The co-debunker of the 'Hockey Stick,' Steve McIntyre, has excerpts from the transcript showing Real Climate's Gavin Schmidt to be, well, a real plonker. He starts with a patronising CSI reference; gets the audience groaning by telling them they're too dim to understand all the science; then Richard Lindzen spots him making up quotes; and later, in the question period where the influence of cosmic rays is being debated, he offers this powerful rejoinder to the studies suggesting their possible impact:

GAVIN SCHMIDT - ….So any change that there might have been because of cosmic ray impacts on climate, can‘t possibly have an impact on what‘s been going on in the last changes.PHILIP STOTT: But the most famous astrophysicist working on it say that it has.GAVIN SCHMIDT Uh, he is drunk.

Posting on his blog he says he was "misquoted." Possibly believable if he hadn't already shown himself to be such a pretentious twat.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Beer O’Clock – Invercargill Pitch Black

Beer tidings on St Patrick's Eve from a grumpy beer correspondent, Neil from Real Beer -- it may be something to do with Scotland's loss to Ireland in last week's Six Nations...

I cannot continue to deny the self-evident truth that Saint Patrick’s Day is almost upon us once again.

It may surprise some, but it is not my favourite day of the year – not even close. In my opinion, Saint Patrick’s Day is now too much like New Year’s Eve – everything feels a bit forced. There are too many people in the bars, drinks are expensive and everyone seems grimly determined to “have a good time” even if that means waiting twenty minutes for a green Guinness while watching a drunk bureaucrat sit on your two-dollar top hat. [Clearly the man has been going to the wrong venues - Ed.]

I’m going out on a limb here, but that is not my idea of a good time or a suitable way to celebrate Irish culture. I’d rather sit in an over-sized armchair with a pint of Guinness and a snifter of Tullamore Dew reading from the works of Oscar Wilde. Instead of hordes of drunken revellers yelling at each other over yet another version of “Dirty Old Town,” I could listen to an album by the Pogues. (Did you know you can actually tell how late in the day every Pogues track was recorded by how hammered Sean MacGowen sounds?)

So, on Saint Patrick’s Day Eve, I’m not to talk Guinness but I am going to talk stout. Normally I leave the stouts and porters to my good friend Stu. Stu just loves beers you can eat with a spoon, particularly if they are so dark their gravitational field threatens to pull your eyeballs out.

Uncommonly, the darkest beer in the range is the Invercargill Brewery’s best seller. The brewery has recently moved to new premises in “central city” Invercargill as brewer Steve Nally had to expand production to meet demand. It’s much nicer than his old cow shed brewery.

Easily mistaken at first glance for a good strong coffee, Pitch Black Stout is a deeply black beer with a coffee-coloured collar of foam. Smelling like a piece of well toasted Vogel’s bread next to a chocolate, this beer is rich, sumptuous and finishes clean.

Many a true word spoken in anger

Taken to task over The Great Global Warming Swindle by two prospective scientific collaborators, film-maker Martin Durkin had obviously had enough of all the hand-wringing, replying to his would-be interlocutors with a short, pithy insult, following it up (says TheTimes) with this riposte:

“The BBC is now a force for bigotry and intolerance . . . Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing.

“Why have we not heard this in the hours and hours of shit programming on global warming shoved down our throats by the BBC?

Many a true word spoken in the anger of an erstwhile private email, methinks. [Hat tip Marcus]

NB: Some correspondents argue, as The Times' Science Editor does, that "the mid-century ... fall came about chiefly because of sulphate aerosols – particles that have a cooling effect on the atmosphere. These are no longer produced so heavily by industry because of environmental regulations to combat other problems, such as acid rain." It's worth pointing out that climate modellers have used this hypothesis to introduce the necessary fudge factors into their computer models, but this in no way proves what is still a hypothesis -- a hypothesis that its progenitor Patrick Michaels discarded when it failed to fit observational evidence -- and one that ignores the dirty industrial revolution going in in China and India today.

Print-friendly PC?

I've been asked a few times if I can install a 'print-friendly' button somewhere on posts to allow them to be easily printed. I can't. This 'template' doesn't allow it. That's the bad news.

BUT, here's the good news. What you can do is this: click on that wee envelop icon at the foot of each post, which opens a page that you can easily print, and very easily email -- so after you've printed a copy to read over your cup of Dilmah tea, you can email a copy to a friend, or even an opponent...

Anti anti-smacking march

Are you one of the reportedly eighty percent of New Zealanders outraged at Sue Bradford's anti-smacking Bill*?

Are you outraged that Helen Clark is retracting an absolute commitment from the election not to ban smacking**?

Then join other outraged New Zealanders in a march on Parliament Wednesday, 28th March, organised by libertarian Mitch Lees, and tell Nanny you don't want the soft fascism of Nanny's disciplinarians coming into your home telling you how you may and may not treat your children. Says Lindsay Perigo:

The police made it unambiguously clear [on Wednesday]*** that if they receive a complaint about a "light smack" they'll be obliged to make an arrest. And they're right. That's what the legislation says. This will be neighbour-dobs-in-neighbour a la East Germany/Soviet Union et al. And when the police have carted off the parent(s), CYFS will cart off the kids. This is truly disgraceful and must be fought tooth and nail. Hat's off to Mitch for stepping up. ALL [those opposed], please, GET IN BEHIND THIS!!!!!!!!!!

For more information, or to help with the organisation of this march, please e-mail Mitch at antiantismacking@gmail.com, and keep an eye on Mitch's blog.

- - - - -

UPDATE: March to start at 12pm at the Civic Square (Wellington). Note it is Wednesday the 28th, not next Wednesday. Another strong rumour is that Bob McCoskrie of Family First is organising an Auckland March. More details to come...

**RADIO RHEMA INTERVIEWER (to Helen Clark, before the election): "So you don't want to see a ban on smacking?"HELEN CLARK: "Absolutely not. I think you're trying to defy human nature."

***Police Association president Greg O'Connor confirmed Wednesday that police guidelines in their current form made it clear they would have no choice but to act on smacking complaints...

Unless there was a change to the guidelines once the law was passed, police would have no discretion. "If it is family violence and there is evidence of violence, the policy is quite clear, the offender must be arrested. "That means an admission or a witness saying they saw someone smack. Police will have no choice but to arrest a person acting on a complaint.

you're gonna be made to pay $374,000 up front to shift one person from car to train, and subsidise 60% of that person's trips, whereas before you didn't. You could always buy them small apartments next to work instead.

You can read his working here. And before you get even more excited about extending the line to the airport, Scott suggests you should take a deep breath:

Remember the city-airport rail service in Sydney isn’t economically viable, and Melbourne looked at it and couldn’t justify it, developing an express bus service instead (which was introduced after the Citylink tollway was built, greatly reducing travel times to/from the airport).

Thursday, March 15, 2007

There's a lesson down there in Queen St

Once upon a time, say about twenty-five years ago, retail rentals in Queen St outstripped retail rentals elsewhere by quite some margin. If you were a retailer or a shopper, this was the place to be in Auckland.

Then, to "encourage greater use of public transport," Auckland City Council began limiting the number of central city car parks that were allowed to be included in new developments. As car park numbers shrank, people didn't begin using buses, they simply went down the motorway to Newmarket. This is when Newmarket became the new shopping mecca that it is now.

Later on, in the mid-nineties, lower Fort St, Customs St and the Britomart area was a thriving night-and-day business and entertainment area. Then, to "encourage greater use of public transport," the Auckland City Council announced plans for a a large, new, downtown transport centre, and they began boarding up businesses and buildings in the area to make one.

Nearly ten years later the area was reopened, and those retail businesses and the landlords who had stayed in the area were found to be out of business, and the city's 'centre of gravity' had moved away from the shiny, new and expensive transport hub -- a hub that still remains well underutilised.

At the same time, private interests had been working away on privately owned shopping malls like St Lukes, Shore City and Westmall, doubling the capacity of these retail centres without closing down the retail businesses therein -- unlike the council's treatment of retailers, the mall owners treated their tenants with courtesy and respect -- which left these malls perfectly placed to pick up the increased retail traffic coming their way because of the ever-increasing council push to keep cars out of the city and to "encourage public transport use."

People didn't jump onto buses. The kept right on jumping in their cars, and headed off to the malls. This is when these malls became the real shopping meccas they are now for many people -- and once again the consequences that council planners intended were turned up on their heads. If people now want to go comfort shopping, they don't go to Queen St, they head off to the mall or to Newmarket (and retail rental levels reflect this reality).

And now? After more than two decades of council "encouragement," public transport use has still barely climbed above the levels of two decades ago, and no-one outside the twenty-storey council building would see Queen St as a retail mecca.

Where Queen St retail levels were once the highest in the country, Queen St retail rentals now lag rentals elsewhere by quite some margin, and Queen St itself is populated largely by two-dollar shops, cheap tourist tat, and shops serving the Asian student population who inhabit so many of central Auckland's former office buildings ... and the Auckland City Council are now talking about banning cars in Queen St.

They just don't learn. Perhaps the councillors could get in their own cars and head to Onehunga, which is another popular shopping destination, and another lesson for planners: Onehunga, which died as a retail centre when cars were banned from the main shopping street, has become increasingly popular as a shopping destination ... especially since the cars were allowed back into the main shopping street.

Filibustering

For an explanation of how Bradford's anti-smacking Bill was delayed last night, read David Farrar's short summary of the methods by which a Bill may be filibustered.

And note too that before the last election Helen Clark -- who last night was whipping her MPs into the 'Yes' lobby -- answered an interviewer this way:

INTERVIEWER: "So you don't want to see a ban on smacking?"HELEN CLARK: "Absolutely not. I think you're trying to defy human nature."

So much for election promises. (You can hear the audio of that interview throughout Leighton Smith's morning show on ZB. Here for example, during an interview with Maurice Wimpianson, who argues (correctly) that this Bill will put Nanny State right inside New Zealanders homes.

So who's up for a march on Parliament? Or on the offices of MPs who might be persuaded to cross the floor?

All spent up and nothing to show for it

A twenty billion dollars spending binge every year ... and bugger all to show for it. That's the news that New Zealand taxpayers wake up to this morning after the Clark Government's eight-year spend-up which has seen an ever increasing burden of taxes imposed, and ever decreasing returns delivered.

Government spending in New Zealand is now $20 billion higher than it was in 2000, says the yet has delivered disappointing results. In this paper Phil Rennie analyses a range of social indicators and finds that little has changed despite a massive increase in funding. He argues that public spending in New Zealand has reached such a high level that it is now delivering diminishing returns.

The overspend is so much, notes the study, that if this extra $20 billion of expenditure was allocated to tax cuts, nearly all income tax could be abolished, and all remaining public services funded solely by a combination of GST and a low corporate tax rate. That's something low-paid Labour voters might care to consider, particularly since all available 'social indicators' have shown negligible improvements since 2000.

Life expectancy, infant mortality, hospital outputs, literacy, violent crime, suicide, poverty and income inequality have all barely changed, says the report, despite a massive increase in social spending.

This is a complete failure for the tax and tax, spend and spend policies pursued by the Clark Government -- an epitaph for Michael Cullen's eight-year ideological burp -- and an utter waste of some largely fortuitous economic golden weather that has been pissed away on middle class welfare and vote-buying, instead of allowing New Zealanders their own money to make real, quality investment for the future.

Wunsch still a warmist - Wunsch

Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two." He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat...

Professor Wunsch:25:43 The ocean is the major reservoir into which carbon dioxide goes when it comes out of the atmosphere or to from which it is re-emitted to the the atmosphere. If you heat the surface of the ocean, it tends to emit carbon dioxide. Similarly, if you cool the ocean surface, the ocean can dissolve more carbon dioxide.

Professor Wunsch:26:44 - The ocean has a memory of past events ugh running out as far as 10,000 years. So for example, if somebody says oh I'm seeing changes in the North Atlantic, this must mean that the climate system is changing, it may only mean that something happened in a remote part of the ocean decades or hundreds of years ago who's effects are now beginning to show up in the North Atlantic.

Professor Wunsch:49:22 - The models are so complicated, you can often adjust them is such a way that they do something very exciting.

Professor Wunsch:50:46 - Even within the scientific community you see, it's a problem.If I run a complicated model and I do something to it like ugh melt a lot of ice into the ocean and nothing happens, ugh it's not likely to get printed. But if I run the same model, and I adjust it in such a way that something dramatic happens to the ocean circulation like the heat transport turns off, ugh it will be published. People will say this is very exciting. It will even get picked by the media. So there is a bias, there's is a very powerful bias within the media, and within the science community itself, toward results which are ugh dramatizable. If Earth freezes over, that's a much more interesting story than saying well you know it ugh fluctuates around, sometimes the mass flux goes up by 10%, sometimes it goes down by 20%, but eventually it comes back. Well you know, which would you do a story on? That's what it's about.

And here's the email sent to him, inviting his participation:

From: jo lockeSent: 19 September 2006 16:22To: Carl WunschCc: Eliya ArmanSubject: Climate Change DocumentaryDear Professor Wunsch,Many thanks for taking the time to talk to me this morning. I found it really useful and now have the issues much clearer in my mind.I wanted to email you to outline the approach we will be taking with our film to clarify our position. We are making a feature length documentary about global warming for Channel Four in the UK. The aim of the film is to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific evidence which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative theories such as solar induced climate change. Given the seemingly inconclusive nature of the evidence, it examines the background to the apparent consensus on this issue, and highlights the dangers involved, especially to developing nations, of policies aimed at limiting industrial growth.We would like to do an interview with you to discuss the notion that there is a scientific consensus on the effects of global warming on the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt, the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift.It has been widely reported that Britain and Western Europe could soon be plunged into a mini ice age, and we would like to show that it is simply not true that they will shut down. We would like to talk to you about the numerical models and whether they give us a realistic perspective of the impact of climate change on the oceans. We would also like to talk to you about the 'memory' of oceans, and how it can take varying amounts of time for a disturbance to be readable in the North Atlantic.Fundamentally, we would like to ask you whether scientists have enough information about the complex nature of our climate system.Do the records go back far enough to identify climate trends, and can we conclusively separate human induced change from natural change?Our filming schedule is still relatively fluid at the moment, but we hope to be in Boston around the second week of November. Please don't hesitate to contact me or my producer, Eliya Arman, if you have any further questions, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.Yours sincerely,Jo LockeAssistant ProducerWagTV2d Leroy House436 Essex RoadLondon N1 3QPt 020 7688 5191 f 020 7688 1702www.wagtv.com

Lovell 'Health' House - Richard Neutra

Richard Neutra's Lovell 'Health' House.

Revolutionary when it was built in 1929 Los Angeles by Neutra, a recent Austraian émigré excited with the methods and materials of American industrialisation -- he boasted that all the 'parts' came straight from a catalogue -- but perhaps difficult to see now with fresh eyes. Too much bad imitation has made the original seem somewhat jaded to today's eyes.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

FREE RADICAL 74: The Environmental Noose is Tightening!

We often joke that each new Free Radical magazine is the best one yet. This latest issue really is the best one yet. Issue 74 of The Free Rad tackles all the popular delusions that threaten life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and gives you the ammunition to defend yourself against the purveyors of misery who promote them.

In this Free Radical, find out about:

The tightening environmental noose, and how, in their push to punish emitters, the high priests of the state religion of environmentalism are well on their way to criminalising productive activity altogether.

What's the inside word on Richard Dawkins and 'The God Delusion,' why has the delusion lasted so long and why does it infect morality so -- and what does the God delusion and its wall-to-wall sackcloth and ashes have to do with the environmental delusion of doom and gloom?

What makes talkback king Leighton Smith tick? And he seems so sensible, so why isn't he a libertarian?

The man who took a knife to a gun fight, and why the police want to crucify the man who didn’t.

All this and more, much more, including more leaked billboards, news of ethnic fundamentalism in New Zealand, more bans on free speech, the case for a new scientific enlightenment, why Sweden works (or appears to) ... and some welcome signs of victory over Nanny State. All this and more in the Free Radical magazine -- 74 blows for freedom and still going strong.

This is compulsory reading for everyone who swears off compulsion. Enlightening reading for everyone who values Enlightenment culture. Good reading for everyone who likes a good read. The Free Radical -- "a magazine of rare courage and intellect," says George Reisman.

Buy your copy now -- or a year's subscription to make certain you never miss a copy again -- and you can share his enjoyment.

UPDATE: In response to several emailed questions: Yes, you can buy the Free Radical from most of the better newsagents who carry it, and order it from those who don't.

Those I know who do carry it include Borders and Whitcoulls in Auckland's Queen St and many Whitcoulls and Paper Plus branches, many Magazino branches, and at good old Magnetix in Lambton Quay. I'll see if I can get a complete list for you and post it later this 'arvo.

Child beaters won't listen anyway

I paraphrase from Lindsay Mitchell:

Just as micro-chipping dogs does not stop dog attacks, neither will repeal of section 59 stop child abuse.

As Lindsay says, Sue Bradford's bill is a red herring. Removal of section 59 won't stop child abuse because child abuse is already against the law -- and none of the child abusers care. Removal of section 59 won't stop child abuse because it won't tackle the causes of child abuse, but it will make criminals out of good parents.

But good parents won't get prosecuted, you say? Remember to whom you're giving discretion: to Clint Rickards' colleagues. D'you trust Clint et al to exercise power with discretion?

O'Connor said police guidelines in their current form made it clear they would have no choice but to act on smacking complaints...

Unless there was a change to the guidelines once the law was passed, police would have no discretion. "If it is family violence and there is evidence of violence, the policy is quite clear, the offender must be arrested. "That means an admission or a witness saying they saw someone smack. Police will have no choice but to arrest a person acting on a complaint."

A commenter at the Humphs makes the telling point: "I think that the biggest impact the passing of this bill will have is not really going to be in the criminal courts but in the family court. Where there is a bitter divorce this will be a favoured weapon." And so it will.

When the truth really **is** inconvenient

THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE is a wonderfully concise presentation of the issues around global warning -- the errors in the warmists' science; the claim that all warming is 'man-made' warming, and all scientists are in agreement; some possible explanations for natural causes; the politics behind the warmists' hysteria.

It's presented as the antidote to Al Bore's slick slideshow, and it sure as hell works.

Let's have a look at some of warmists' errors as highlighted in the film:

There has been no warming since 1998.

CO2 is not a pollutant -- indeed, it is what makes plants grow.

Most warming in the last 120 years took place before 1940 -- that is, before modern industrialisation took place before, and certainly well before the vast bulk of human CO2 emissions began (see pic above).

There is contrary evidence from 1940-75, when human CO2 production really began in earnest, and temperatures went down

There is no evidence that advanced global warming would be detrimental -- indeed there is much evidence that it would be beneficial.

There is no evidence that the upper atmosphere is warming, which is where the warmists' models say it shoud be.

There is no evidence, none at all, that global warming is man-made, and certainly not with the mechanism for warming that is frequently cited by the warmists.

CO2 is not even the primary greenhouse gas. That prize goes to water vapour, which contributes a massive 95% of beneficial warming, which reponds more to the sun and cosmic rays than to any human infuence. CO2 only makes up 3.5% of earth's greenhouse gases, and just a tiny 3% of that CO2 is attiributable to humans. The rest is all nature's work: Volcanoes. Rotting leaves. Animals. Add that up and human-induced greenhouse warming is an almost negligible 0.12% of all warming.

And the earth needs to warm, it needs its greenhouse gases; without it we'd all be dead.

The earth has been warmer, much warmier than it is at present -- in the Mediaeval Warm Period for example, when all those cathedrals were built; and right back too in the Holocene era when it was several degrees warmer -- and the polar bears didn't die then either.

In fact, temperature trends for the past 15,000 years include 10 large swings, including the Mediaeval Warm Period. These shifts were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

The warmists say that CO2 causes warming. If that's so, there's no evidence in the history. Never in recorded history has a rise in CO2 preceded warming. For good reasons, mainly to do with the oceans, it has always and everywhere followed warming, with a time lag of some eight-hundred years (see below left). There is no evidence that fundamental relationship has changed, despite the slick sleight-of-hand performed by Al Bore's slides.

And what of the claim that global warming exacerbates extreme weather events? Not so, says Richard Lindzen, who points out that the primary driver of weather events is the temperature gradient between the hot mid latidudes and the freezing poles. And what do you think happens if this difference is made smaller? You'll forgive me if I don't offer the person who answers correctly a chocolate fish.

Anybody who actually looks at the science and still takes the warmist hysteria seriously is really not seeing the forest, and may be looking too hard at the wrong trees, argues the film.

WHAT MAKES THE PLANET warm? The sun.

So what does the film suggest is making the planet get warmer? Yep. The sun. Sun activity provides a way better 'fit' with the temperature record says the film's scientists, and without that nasty eight-hundred year time lag that Al Bore glosses over. Note that it' s not incumbent upon skeptics to explain the cause of the recorded warming -- that is, the observed rise in the temperature record from 1975 to 1998. Nonetheless, the film makers offer a compelling answer.

MARCUS HAS MORE ON the film here. For a reasoned summary of objections to the film, Frogblog has the team at Real Climate, and former IPCC assessment committee co-chairman James Houghton doing his bit for his science (in two parts, here and here). Careful of the spin. For example, you will note that Houghton's story about Paul Reiter fails to tell the whole truth. It is not what Reiter himself reports, and indeed not what he reported in the film. Reiter wasn't upset that "his expert work on malaria failed to get recognition in the relevant IPCC chapter," as Houghton claims.

In fact, he was apoplectic because the chapter summary to which he had contributed was dead against the science; that it was written behind his back by non-experts, and released in a high-profile press conference to which he wasn't invited, and he had to resort to legal action to get his name removed from what he called "a sham." His later non-inclusion from the IPCC panel (despite nomination as a lead author by the US Government) in favour of non-experts speaks more of an attempt to manufacture a consensus than it does about science -- as Christopher Monckton describes it, "the panel vetoed his appointment because they knew he disagreed with the alarmist view that they were determined to purvey."

Jorgine Boomer House - Frank Lloyd Wright

The Boomer House was designed for the Arizona desert back in the days before air conditioning made designing for the desert a doddle -- more than one client of my own has been captivated by the wonderfully playful intersection of geometries at work here.

As have I. :-)The picture comes from Wright's 1954 book, The Natural House.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Time for building authorities to start wriggling

What are your chances of suing the state when the state gets it wrong?

What chance of suing one of the state's regulatory authorities when they get it wrong, and you end up paying for it? How about suing two state authorities, one regulatory and one advisory, who between them mandated, prescribed and certified construction techniques and materials upon which builders, designers, developers and home-buyers relied in good faith -- many of which turned out not to be worth the accreditation certificates upon which they were promoted.

Since the very first signs of a screw-up, the two authorities I describe -- the Government's building industry authority and the country's leading building research organisation -- have adopted a "Who, us?" approach to the houses crumbling around them, houses that for the most part were built by builders who were simply following what was required of them by the Government's building industry authority and by the country's leading building research organisation.

They've been dodging ever since. Until now. The Herald reports that an adjudication has just found against the two in a case involving a $4.6 million Ellerslie development (left), opening them up to a potential billion-dollar liability if that decision is supported in the High Court.

A while back I posted a wee fairy tale about a leaky home or two after a major court decision that did threw out acase against these two. It might be worth reading it again just to see what the stakes are:

Let me tell you a brief fairy tale.

Once upon a time, several years ago, in a land awfully much like this one, a government department called the BIA, and an eager young researcher cousin BRANZ, were set up to mandate and oversee standards and practices in buildings, to authorise and dictate building systems, and to stamp the government's authority on an errant building industry -- in essence to say what the King would and would not allow in building, and to give what they had allowed the Royal seal of approval.

Many people rejoiced that this would save them the brain-ache of being allowed to decide for themselves what was safe and sound. 'Stuff with our seal of approval is safe and sound,' said the nice bureaucrats. 'Excellent!' said the people. Meanwhile, those who did wish to decide for themselves were told not to. 'Don't worry,' the BIA and BRANZ told everyone, 'as long as you all do what you're told and as you're told and when you're told, we'll make sure nothing untoward happens to you.'

And for a while, everything was good in the BIA, and many careers in government were confirmed, and many building suppliers got rich by getting their building systems and their materials approved by the BIA; and many important meetings were attended, many bureaucratic salaries paid, and many BIA determinations and approvals issued.

And the little people of this fair land did all that they were allowed to do and all that they were told to do, and many houses on many hills were erected in the fashion that BIA determinations and approvals said they were allowed to be and told to be - and everyone knew they were safe and sound and could stop thinking for themselves, because as everyone knows the job of the King is to keep everyone safe and sound, and wasn't he and his men doing their job so well! 'Approved by the BIA.' 'Tested by BRANZ.' These were Royal seals of approval and official stamps of safety and soundness that could be relied up on to keep everyone warm and dry.

And lo, the people rejoiced in ther homes, and the bureaucrats rejoiced in their big, shiny offices that the people were made to pay for. And the King decided that all was good, and he went off to climb a mountain.

Until one day, the rains came. And it turned out the job had not been done so well; that some of what BRANZ had approved and the BIA had determined had to happen shouldn't have happened at all. And then it also turned out that the people at BRANZ and the BIA were not all-seeing and all-knowing, and that their job had really been one of 'all care and no responsibility.' 'Whoops,' said BRANZ. 'Whoops,' said the BIA; and they they pointed fingers, changed their name, withdrew their approvals, and promptly vanished in a puff of bureaucracy.

And the good people of that merry, green land looked to each other and wondered why they had ever taken the government and their minions seriously. They wondered why they had worried more about 'fly-by-night' builders, when it was clearly 'fly-by-night' government departments that were the witches and warlocks.

And meanwhile, good builders and good designers and home-owners who had relied upon the determinations and approvals of BRANZ and the BIA as being safe, found that the policy of 'all care and no responsibility' only applied to government, and to government departments, (and of course to big suppliers with good political connections and big legal departments).

And the good people began fighting amongst each other. And many good people were ruined. And many other good people went to Queensland and retired. And the cost of building doubled in that green and merry land.

And everyone wondered why they had let it happen.(Meanwhile, some others wondered whether the government should set up a Car Approval Authority, to take responsibility for approving second-hand cars before they're sold... 'Well, it works for houses,' said one wag.)

Warming? It's about politics, stupid.

Climate scientists unconvinced by the warmists' mantra and "who question mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community" says theDaily Telegraph. The Telegraph summarises some of the threats, and also the claims of politicisation made by non-warmists in the film The Great Global Warming Swindle -- "several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored."

Richard Lindzen pointed out in the film a reason for that new 'paradigm.' The budget for US climate science pre-IPCC was a modest $170 million, mostly going to sober and serious (and mostly un-newsworthy) research.

In a few short politically-driven years however, this had rocketed to over $2 billion -- a twenty-fold increase -- with all that funding politically dependent on the science of calamity. The scientists conclusions were too often the conclusions they were paid to find, or else.

"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism," says Lindzen, "have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

“Fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend on Global Warming right now. It’s a big business.” Says Professor Patrick Michaels – Dept of Environmental Sciences – University of Virginia.

“Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.” Says Dr Roy Spencer – Weather Satellite Team Leader – NASA.

Has apartheid gone from the curriculum?

The Treaty was one of nine guiding principles in the previous curriculum adopted in 1993, which explained that the Treaty recognised "the unique position of Maori in New Zealand society".

Not any more -- at least, not in the draft. No surprise to find that some people are upset that "the unique position of Maori in New Zealand society" may not be taught to impressionable youngsters. But those people are not racists. Oh no.

Monday, March 12, 2007

"What have you got?"

IN THE CLASSIC biker movie 'The Wild One,' gang leader Marlon Brando is asked what he's rebelling against. He shrugs, and mumbles, "What have you got?"

I was reminded of that this morning when reading of the latest comments of National's leadership "dream team."

Quizzed on tax cuts, Little Billy English says despite record government surpluses, his party is set to ditch its policy of tax cuts -- the Nats would not introduce extensive tax cuts if it was in power now.

Quizzed on housing, John Boy Key declared National is set to ditch its policy of market-related rents for state houses, and confirmed the National Socialists will build more state houses and stick with Labour's policy of income-related rents

So what will these two sell out next? "Well," I hear them saying, "What have you got?"

It's impossible to be any more pathetically ineffectual than these two Pink Tories. Anybody proud of them?

NB: Yes, I said I wouldn't post anything else today -- but how can you ignore this appeasing crap.

Your job for today: Watch THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

No posts from me today: there's only one thing you need to do today and that's to make sure you do whatever has to be done to see THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE. The issue is one on which your whole future depends, and this film is the very best short exposure of the scam -- a one hour fifteen minute knife thrust to the heart of the nonsense. This is a film you must see -- you owe it to yourself, your business, your family and your future health, wealth and prosperity. It's THAT important.

Click the picture to see it online. Details below on how to order the DVD.

Sunday, March 11, 2007

'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - NOW ONLINE

Screening last Thursday night in the UK, Martin Durkin's doco 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' has made an undeniable impact. So let me say right off the bat that you can now see it on the internet, and there's a link either at the foot of this post, or by clicking on the picture at left.

This is not a review, it is a flat-out endorsement: YOU MUST SEE THIS FILM!

It is the ESSENTIAL antidote to Al Bore's doomfest, and the single best short answer to all those seeking to shackle productivity in the name of 'carbon neutrality.' I suggest you do whatever you can to make sure that you see it, and that as many warmists as you know see it with you.

Undeniably interesting is Durkin's background, alluded to in the Samizdata review, and profiled more fully by NBR's Nevil Gibson:

I hadn’t previously heard of him but Durkin is associated with the former UK-based Revolutionary Communist Party, a group that has moved from neo-Marxism to libertarianism. Its views can be found in the works of Frank Furedi (‘Politics of Fear’) and at spiked.com.

It believes poverty is solved by free trade and economic growth; that Marx was right about invincibility of capitalism and its ability to deliver prosperity (it is then a matter of spreading it around); and that bringing (electric) power to the people is a virtue.

While radical, the group’s pro-technology and anti-environmental stance, plus opposition to all forms of regulation and censorship, make it appealing to right wingers as well.

The enemy is new age socialism that favours heavy regulation and inhibits progress in favour of turning the clock back from globalisation and capitalism to a world where nature rules and (preferably) man has disappeared.

Durkin achieved notoriety for an earlier documentary, ‘Against Nature’ (1997), in which he exposed how the DDT ban now causes millions of deaths from malaria and why the campaigns against hydro-electric dams prevent the supply of safe water and sanitation to millions of others.

Durkin isn’t afraid to take his camera into the Third World hovels of Africa and the Indian subcontinent ... to show the wretched state of their inhabitants, who are denied the benefits of science and industry in the name of ‘sustainable development.’

Though debunking the bogus “science” behind the environmentalist movement is important, an editorial in today’s NY Times illustrates that, as with so many social/political issues, it is at the moral level that the battle truly must be fought. And in this sense, Objectivism is the only system that can offer a true (i.e. scientific) defense of man and his place on earth.

From the editorial:

Whether or not you agree with them about, say, homosexuality and abortion — and we emphatically do not — it is antiquated to limit the definition of morality to the way humans behave among humans.

Those days have been over ever since it became apparent that humans — busy thinking only about their own lives — had the power to destroy huge numbers of species, whole landscapes of habitat and, in fact, the balance of life on earth. The greatest moral issue of our time is our responsibility to the planet and to all its inhabitants.

Looks like there's one thing that Objectivists and Al Gore do agree on: that this is a moral issue. The difference is that Objectivists recognise that morality does not require sacrifice, and certainly not any sort of sacrifice to the high priests of a non-existent apocalypse.

UPDATE 2: The folks at WAG TV, the producers of this documentary, start producing DVDs on a small scale on Monday. Price: US$ 19.99 / £9.99. They also report they are seeking a mainstream US broadcast outlet.

If you want it screened on NZ TV, the best thing to do is write, phone, email or visit the two main broadcasters and insist (politely) that they do. TVNZ contact page is here; TV3's is here.

This is a film you have to get hold of and show all your warmist friends who have been seduced by Al Bore. It's a much better film than Bore's, and this one actually makes sense -- it is the single best one-hour-and-a-bit anti-warmist argument you can offer. It is that good!

Don't like that conclusion? Then take issue with the facts of the two year study, commissioned by the UK Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, who conclude that "whether we like it or not, drugs are and will remain a fact of life."

True enough -- if no government, however officious, can even keep drugs out of its prisons, then it's clear enough that drugs aren't just going to disappear by passing laws about it, no more than alcohol did when laws were passed prohibiting that. Realism, then, demands facing up to the many harmful consequences of prohibition, which this study concludes are more harmful than many of the drugs themselves.

"The use of illegal drugs is by no means always harmful any more than alcohol use is always harmful," Professor Anthony King of Essex University, the commission chairman told Britain's Daily Telegraph.Professor King added: "The evidence suggests that a majority of people who use drugs are able to use them without harming themselves or others... The harmless use of illegal drugs is thus possible, indeed common."

Which all makes the Libertarianz transitional policy on drugs look increasingly sensible: that is, legalisation of all drugs objectively shown to be less harmful that alcohol.

Any objections? Any reasonable objections?

UPDATE: The good chaps at Pacific Empire, who no more 'do drugs' than I do, argue compellingly that Graham Burton's post-release crime rampage was another harmful consequence of prohibition:

He was doing exactly what the cops do legally, just with more brutality. Taxation, confiscation and so on: just enforcing the laws. It does sound like the police turned a blind eye to him until his final rampage. A compelling argument for legalization is that it would remove a major source of violent crime - competition between drug dealers, who have no legal remedy against assault or theft, and can only retaliate in the same way, risking escalation.

Tip Jar

In America, they tip. In NZ, we shout beer. If you like the service here at Not PC, drop a tip in the tip jar and you can do both.

Recent
Comments

Some Paddy's Day lists
Have you seen the new India search enginewww.ByIndia.com they added all the cool features of popular productslike MySpace,YouTube, Ebay,craigslist,etc.all for free to use and specifically for India.Anyone else try this yet? ByIndia.com First to Blend Search,Social Network,Video Sharing and Auctions Into One Seamless Product for Indian Internet Users.
Something to think about on St Patrick's Day
Cross-party consensus "deeply conservative, backward, and reactionary."
Oops, looks like global warming which stopped in 1998 has started up again. You can't keep a good warming trend down.
"We don't say this (northern) winter is evidence of the influence of greenhouse gases," Mr Lawrimore said.

And neither is it. It's another El Nino, just as the 1998 high was.
"So we know... the warming trend is due in part to rises in greenhouse gas emissions," Mr Lawrimore said.
PC, you're absolutely right, there was (is) an El Nino in 2006-7 ... but even if ALL of this warming was due to El Nino, it would make it the warmest El Nino since 1850, according to the TaveGL2v dataset ...
This is a great piece on the real motivation behind 'the emergency' of global warming!Side stepping their bankruptcy and Posturing for Democratic power.Bloody tyranny!
DEBATE: "Global warming is not a crisis"
Beer O’Clock – Invercargill Pitch Black
Many a true word spoken in anger
It is worth reading the whole article in The Times. Durkin apologises for his choice of "intemperate language".
... imagine something worse than warmism?

.. have you heard the rumour that Al Gore is gearing up to step into the Democratic breach once Hilary and Obama have mutually destructed?

President of USA + warmism = ?
Print-friendly PC?
You're right, I think it is a template thing. I've scoured all the Blogger Help sites but without finding an easy answer, they all seem to mention chanmges to the template's code.

The envelope is a good start, but also if you click on the time after "Posted by Pc at" XX, you will go to that posts unique page with comments and images etc. I think that was your requester was after.

Or you could change your template :-)
Anti anti-smacking march
Nice double-speak in your title there, PC.
Oops. Wrote that before the first coffee. :-/
I put your post up on CR as well. And Murray has something up on his.Here's hoping people will get off their butts and attend.
:P - yeah the terminology around the whole issue is a bugger.
PC said...Bob McCoskrie of Family First is organising an Auckland March.

Ruth will be there too to participate.
Here is something for Tim W - I hope dear old PC doesn't verbally hit me for saying it...

I post here cuz his aggression does not scare me - and actually my opinion is well within the main stream - look at Coddington, Rougham etc, whereas his - as a white middle-aged male with no children who wants to be able to smack kids, is quite radical. And it is noticed.

JESUS never hit a child. Dog trainers and horse trainers (See "Horse Sense for People" by Monty Roberts) are cleaning up their acts, purging their disciplines of the whipping habit and educating the public about nonviolent methods for raising well-mannered, peaceful animals. Child psychology is far, far behind due to the influence of "religious" rightwing zealots who use the Bible in obvious ways to justify their violence. Our laws protect domestic abusers rather than their victims, providing endless loopholes for violent adults (so long as they assault people who are younger than 18 years of age.) Bradford's bill will stop this.

If I was a Christian like Tim and the people at Family First I would sooner face the Judgement Seat of Christ as a supporter of children's rights rather than having to explain why I supported the hitting of children.

'And He took the children in His arms, put His hands on them and blessed them.' Mark 10:16
THIS IS tO PC i am ruths 12 yr old daughter and dis is wat i think...dat it is unfair how when kids do something wrong they get smacked and when adults like yourself do something wrong they dont get hit at all..

i think the law shud b changed so kids can smack adults. if u think people hav the rite to hit people then the teenage street gangs are free to beat up everyone.

i dont care if u dnt like me coz i aint goin on dis again anywayz.

dis msn language if u dnt understand dum arse.

p.s... i advise u not to hav kids because they wont like you!

bye
Hi Grace!

I agree with you and your Mum that smacking is wrong: It is something that I would never do to my daughter.

In fact, I believe all forms of coercive child-rearing are wrong. That includes time-out, confiscation, compulsory schooling etc. I follow the Taking Children Seriously philosophy.

People in families hurt each other in all sorts of ways: it is not just smacking. TCS families try to resolve conflict by coming up with a solution where no-one suffers. We recognise that children can be right and that parents can be mistaken (and the other way round too!). You are probably familiar with situations where a child has been unfairly punished for something they didn't do because an adult didn't listen and imposed their will anyway. This causes a great deal of distress for the child, whether smacking is involved or not.

We can't enact laws to prevent bad parenting: the only way to get through to parents is by persuasion. This is why I don't think that smacking laws will solve anything. Bad parents will continue to neglect their children (and most child abuse arises because of neglect); parents who are violent will continue to be violent. If our existing laws are not sufficient to stop them, then no law will.

Another problem is that under the proposed ban, it is all too easy for good parents to get into trouble. Many people, I think, would disapprove of my parenting practices (teachers especially!). How easy it would be now for someone to cause a lot of trouble for my wife and myself if they thought our daughter should be in school!

Anyway, those are some thoughts. Do come back!
I wrote: "If our existing laws are not sufficient to stop them, then no law will". Which is not really what I meant! I think Liberty Scott had some good suggestions for cracking down on child abuse, but none of these will be palatable to Labour.
Ruth, your daughter's post is a very good example of why children should be smacked. At age 12 I don't believe I would have known that swear word, and I MOST CERTAINLY wouldn't have been writing it. Also, I could spell.
Anon said...Ruth, your daughter's post is a very good example of why children should be smacked.

That is great Ruth for congratulating your own daughter by posting Anonymously. Perhaps, Grace never made that post, but Ruth herself.
seems to me that Ruth and her foul-mouthed daughter have succeeded in doing the impossible--lowering the standards of the anti-smacking zealots.
Are there any sociological, psychological, etc test results available on the extremely adverse effects of giving time out to children ? Surely parents who intentionally ignore their children are causing more hurt and alienation than a light smack.
Cheaper to buy rail-riders an apartment close to work
Love my car.Took train for first time in 20 years from Papatoetoe to City late last your for Indian Festival. We took route through Glen Innes.I thought it was great.Looking at the rail network on display in the train, I thought were are all the tracks through East Tamaki, Botany, and Pakuranga.No new tracks seem to have been built for decades.New subdivisions have been made with no thought of connecting a train service to them. Seems like a good idea to branch a line off at Manukau, go north through East Tamkaki, Botany, Howick. Then head west into Pakuranga and new bridge over the Tamaki river to connect up at Glen Innes. It would solve a huge transport issue.Stuff the cost, its needed
Anon opined:

"Stuff the cost, its needed"

If you want it, you pay for it. All of it.

What's that I hear you say? Not bloody likely?

Funny how socialists are so quick to spend other people's money, but are never prepared to foot the bill for their ambitions themselves...
Im not a socialist - Far from itHappy to pay my fair share. I'd rather spend my tax money on this than all of Labour's crap schemes

But I also believe in infrastructure spending, especially if there has been no investment in this area for decades. Answer this - When were the last rail tracks laid in Auckland?
There are tracks being laid as we type. The western line is being doubled tracked.

Sean.
City of Arts & Oceanographic Sciences - Santiago Calatrava
I like the design a lot, even if it is a bit 'opera house'. That rock pool area will look old very quickly though. It is a shame they did not do more with the landscaping.
oh my! What a beautiful bit of engineering.
There's a lesson down there in Queen St
Far be it for me to defend the council, but isn't just a proposed temporary ban to ease the gridlock caused by (albeit unnecessary) renovations on the street?
This ban is all part of the U.N socialist Agenda 21!It is part of the Global warming scam!It is tree hugging B.S!I would expect nothing less from Dick!Here in Hamilton the same rubbish is going on! Cycle lanes are all the rage with H.C.C...but not with commuters! Nobody uses them!The H.C.C are driving up parking meter fees (to grab loot and encourage public transport use) yet Malls outside the center are growing humungusly!Oh and H.C.C has poll position in Downtown...and are having a spend up on renovations!
Sean, this is about Buses!The council want Auckanders to use public transport and are prepared to grant monoplies to it to force them out of their cars!Dont be deluded by their pretext!
Sean, yes it is. I guess my point is that the ban, however temporary, shows they've learned nothing from their own recent history.

Once customers and retail move away form an area, it takes a while to get them back again -- and businesses affected by a drastic drop in custom may never come back.

Organisations like Westfield know this, and they carefully programme their work for the least possible intrusion on retailers. By contrast, council just bowls on ahead regardless, and then starts talking about bans.
PC,

I take your point, and see how it applies to even a temporary situation. I am in perfect agreement. I just think it is best to mention the temporary nature of the ban. Otherwise One risks overstating One's case and therefore losing it almost by default.

Sean.
You've only gotta look at the bullshit going on on aucklands north shore, where we have two transite lanes on Constelation drive to encourage public transport and car pooling.

These transport lanes operate between 7:30 and 9 and 4:30 and six, seriously screwing all the people who work in the area and need to park for work, as they have to move from one side of the road to the other or face a $40 fine.

In the 6 to 12 months that these have been operating I have yet to see one bus actually use these fucking monstrosoties.
Auckland City Council's transport general manager is Stephen Rainbow - who was a Green councillor in Wellington City some years back for some time. He then led the campaign against the motorway extension between Mt Victoria Tunnel and the motorway, and won because all the environmental mitigation demanded priced it off the agenda.

He is a "blue" green and was on the National list a couple of elections back, but he is no transport economist or engineer - his Ph.D is in politics - green politics.
Central Auckland and Queen Stret in partciular should be the shame of New zealand.Queen street should be Auckland's and New Zealand's premiere shopping destination- just as Bond street is to Britain, unless Red `Ken has fucked it up in the years i have been away from England.I see that huge hole where the car park is, by that stup[id bungy thingy.But yes, Queen Street. It fails because no-one will go there. As you say, People love their cars. They want somewhere to park cheaply and easily.This is why the malls win hands down.Queen Street is far away from their homes, so it needs something to draw the shoppers in.As yet, there is nothing.Now, with that big hole I mention, what is needed is five levels of underground parking, five levels of shops, topped of with 20 storreys of luxury appartments or offices.There needs to be a major redevelopment of Queens Street and the surrounding areas if Auckland is to have a trily living beating heart once more.Current council policies are just killing it.
What made the council suggest this Ban?The fact that buses are taking too long to get through so this means the people who use them will get sick of it and abandon them!This is all about buses and using poltical force to get Aucklanders out of their cars and into state buses!They will crush all private interests that stand in the way of their Green plans!Not to mention revenue gathering!They will put up rates to fund this rubbish!

In todays Waikato times ..."Bus run figures shock Mayor..."A heavily subsidised 5 days-a-week bus run from Morinsville to Hamilton is atracting less than 1 passanger a day!"...

Buses are the Big thing with the commy Greens and the UN. Watch these Agenda 21 plans get foisted upon every town and city in the country!And Kyoto is part of this same U.N scheme!
Filibustering
Wait for the spin.
All spent up and nothing to show for it
Wunsch still a warmist - Wunsch
PC: For starters. it is clear that the doco-makers took a Wunsch soundbite - "If you heat the surface of the ocean, it tends to emit carbon dioxide etc..." and placed it out of it's original context such that it appeared Wunsch was supporting the hypothesis that heightened levels of CO2 could be naturally caused. His actual position is clear cut, and this is not it. That is the crux of the dishonesty.

As for Wunsch himself, it's a bit rich to suggest that he was previously a Lindzen-type skeptic but is now feeling the heat from the evil warmists, and is recanting under duress. His position is well-articulated and any amount of Googling you may care to do will show that it is consistent with statements made well before the documentary was even a twinkle in Durkin's eye.

I have largely refrained from commentary on it here because AGW is such a polarised topic on the blog that it would essentially be bashing myself against a brick wall. Suffice to say that with my understanding of the current science, it was disingenuous and misleading to say the least (primarily in the areas where it reports that the troposphere is not warming to expected levels, which has been roundly disproved, and in the one-dimensional discussion of the temperature-carbon lag).

DenMT
Nice to see you waking up how science really works pc. That cartoon says it all, doesn't it?
Den, three questions:

Was he misled?

Did you leap as quickly to point out the many disingenuous and misleading science in Al Bore's film -- 120 one-sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative and plain wrong points according to this Skeptic's Guide to 'An Inconvenient Truth'?

If not, why not?
PC - I think it is clear that he was 'misled' inasmuch as the documentary maker presented a quote of his out of context that gave it a different, specific meaning. This must have been consciously done, and Wunsch has reacted strongly to this. Perhaps not 'misled' so much as 'shafted,' but were talking nomenclature here.

As for your other two questions, as I think I made clear in the first post, I try not to pick fights on here to do with the science surrounding AGW as it is a bit of an echo chamber. I respect that you are always willing to offer an argument, but your intractability on this topic and that of other commenters is a big turn-off for debate. There are too many right-wing/libertarian sites proclaiming this documentary to be the 'long-awaited truth' on global warming, the secret reality that has been hidden from us for so long, whereas the reality is that solar variation only represents an alternative theory.

When I do get stuck into a GW debate I try hard to be even-handed and steer clear of allegations of murky political intent, the likes of which you are pinning on Wunsch here (ie he is intellectually dishonest in his abject fear of the warmist illuminati). As you can imagine however, the central characters and director of the doco are fertile ground for such mud-slinging.

I prefer much more to centre on the science. I am more than happy, enthusiastic even, to get into discussion on the research into the warming of the troposphere, and the temp-carbon forcing relationship which are the central issues that Durkin seeks to highlight in the documentary.

I will pose you a question in reply:

Even if Wunsch was not technically 'misled,' does that validate the documentary makers quoting him out of context? Does he have a right to feel aggrieved in this respect?
The long awaited reality? No. But a long awaited clearing of the air, a demonstration that the 'consensus' is vastly overstated, and a long overdue public demonstration that much of the UN's science is flawed.

It is a long overdue antidote to the much-flawed 'An Inconvenient Truth.'

Is it perfect? No.

Does it need to present an alternative (solar) theory? No. But it's useful to present an alternative explanation for warming, one that the GCMs don't even include as a supplementary cause of warming. Absurd.

Does it need to go into the politics? Yes, it does. It goes to motivation. Did Lindzen need to point out the twenty-fold leap in funding? Once again, it goes to motivation.

Now, was Wunsch misled? Well, I think it's clear enough that he knew where the film-makers were coming from, and he had a fair idea of the direction they were going to take. Perhaps he wasn't aware they would take such a forceful approach, but that is a film-maker's right - and given the importance of the topic, why wouldn't you be forceful?

After all, it's the strangling of western industry we're talking about here.

Was he quoted out of context? I just don't know. If he was, it hardly discredits the programme.
With all due respect PC, you have no idea what happened during filming process. He may have been misled in a way that is not detectable from the letter (e.g. the producers saying they will use the full explanation of something and then actually only using the bit they want). A filmmaker being open about their position in advance (the letter being your 'evidence' that he was clearly not misled) does not protect you from actually being misled.

If you are asked a series of questions and provide hours of footage (as probably happened) and only a few carefully selected bits are taken out of context and put in a film, then yes, you have been misled.

Was he quoted out of context? I just don't know.

He probably was, given that he said he was "completely misrepresented".

If he was, it hardly discredits the programme.

Bollix and I don't actually think you believe that.

The reality is that the docco is as appalling as "an inconvenient truth" and relies heavily on very very short sound bites that are not presented in context.

Did you leap as quickly to point out the many disingenuous and misleading science in Al Bore's film

Since when do 2 wrongs make a right?

And lets turn that back on you. If you are going to criticise "an inconvenient truth" because of "disingenuous and misleading science", be consistent and do the same here.

Of course, this is your blog and you are within your rights to say whatever you like, but if you don't it becomes very clear those who read this that your position is just as unscientific and uncritical as the looney warmists. The way I see it is that you are just at the other end of the global warming debate spectrum.

The people in the middle probably have something useful to say.
If the water in Wellington Harbour is not lapping the ground somewhere near Avalon in fifty years we will know who is right. Of course, the lights would have gone out by then and we will all be living in the greenies medieval paradise.
"If he was, it hardly discredits the programme.

Bollix and I don't actually think you believe that."

So every other person who appeared on that program, including former co-founder of Greenpeace (Patrick Moore) is to be ignored too?

Are they all dishonest?

And what of Wunsch's comments. Nothing he said on that program is incorrect. It is standard textbook oceanography.

And the comments about 'gee whizz' research getting all the qudos is not new either.

The media don't report all the nuts and bolts science that goes on. If they did, my research would have made the papers - twice.

Strangely, the News editors didn't cover my findings about the genetics behind a cell-wall protein on a certain genus of fungi. Naturally I'm devastated that they believe that reporting on such a finding wouldn't sell their product - but there it is.

So you have to ask yourself, were his statements taken out of context? I don't believe they were. They were complete answers to questions asked of him in the E-mail. Read Peter's transcripts.

Possibly he offered unsolicited opinions about Global warming and these weren't included. If so, why is the documentary maker obliged to include every single word that the interviewed party makes?

As long as the responses reflect the complete and truthful answer to the questions posed to Wunsch, he has nothing to bitch about.

If he didn't want to be included in a anti-Global Warming documentary he was fully at liberty to turn down the interview. Caveat Emptor and all that. If you accept an interview from someone you've never heard of before, it is smart to check their credentials.

Wunsch and every other scientist does as much every time he publishes a scientific paper. Or do you think that they just send their results off to the first Journal editor in their Rolladex?

IMHO he's got nothing to bitch about.
Anonymous (another one, sigh) told me: "If you are going to criticise "an inconvenient truth" because of "disingenuous and misleading science", be consistent and do the same here."

Nah, PC's cartoon doesn't show how science works; it just illustrates a problem that scientists have to contend with, namely the religion of environmentalism.
Lovell 'Health' House - Richard Neutra
FREE RADICAL 74: The Environmental Noose is Tightening!
Child beaters won't listen anyway
The point of the law is to remove the parental right to hit your kids as a defence.

The issue is whether you think such a right exists, not whether people will stop abusing their kids.
"The issue is whether you think such a right exists, not whether people will stop abusing their kids." Hamish.

That is *not* the issue. Both Clark and Bradford are promoting this piece of socialist engineering to -and I quote - "stop (the) 'beating' and 'violence'".

It will do neither. Lindsay Mitchell's point stands.

And besides, you forget the material point that smacking is not compulsory, nor has it ever been.

Open your eyes. And wait for the next assault from the same interfering busybodies on 'time out' for its psychological impact.This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fourteen nations have now banned all corporal punishment of children. The sky has not fallen.

Anyone who feels they have a right to strike a child should not have the privilege of raising one.

In respect of 'Humphs' comment - this legislation is about what is best for our *children* who cannot defend themselves - not what is best for the biggest and strongest, and not what is best for rich white men's divorce suits.

There is no reason to ever hit a child. It's very sad that there is still so much ignorance in this country.
I know you prefer emotions to facts, Anonymous/Ruth -- or reading -- but let's look at just one of those fourteen nations, shall we. Sweden.

"Latest figures from Sweden reveal that more and more children are being abused in Sweden.

According to The Swedish Daily, there has been a 14% increase in child abuse cases in 2006 compared with 2005 figures.

This backs up earlier research showing that child abuse increased 489% in the 13 years following a ban on smacking, and assaults by minors against minors increased 672%.

In a 2000 Swedish Government report, it said “we see no tendency to a decrease in bullying at school or in leisure time during the last 20 years” [Source, Family First, Scoop]

"The sky has not fallen," you say? I don't know what 489% sounds like to you, but it sounds pretty darn serious to me .

There is still so much ignorance, and so much of it used in support of this stupid and intrusive bill.

"There is no reason to ever hit a child," you say. If you don't know the difference between smacking and beating, then may I suggest you give your children to someone who does.
Yes, Anon. It is very sad that there is still so much ignorance in this country.

Ignorance that allows people to believe they have the right to impose their views upon other adults.

Ignorance that refuses to acknowledge the difference between adult and child.

Ignorance that cannot recognise state control when it stares them in the eye.

Especially when that state control has the audacity to disguise itself as a good intention.
Sus - I'm not really fussed about what you have selectively quoted Clark and Bradford saying.

"And besides, you forget the material point that smacking is not compulsory, nor has it ever been."

That is a completely meaningless statement. So you think smacking is ok. Just say freaking say it.

And thank you to PC for providing actual facts and figures above that support a viewpoint, rather than just saying whatever feels right. Although I don't necessarily agree that the aim of smacking legislation should be to prevent assaults between minors (as opposed to the, in my opinion, far more serious issue of assault by adults on minors) at least it adds something to the debate.Especially when that state control has the audacity to disguise itself as a good intention.

Between the left-wing social engineers and the right-wing conspiratorialists you must have a lot of sleepless nights.

:P
Hamish, if you wish to ignore what the proponents of any bill - in this case, Clark & Bradford - "selectively" say about it, then your naivety is scary.

Prior to the election the PM stated that she would not support a ban on smacking.

Now she's not only doing so, but has commanded her entire party to do so, too. So much for a conscience vote. So much for a conscience.

And if you think that's not significant, then you're either young, foolish, politically naive ... or a promoter of state control.

Oh. And I'm not concerned if a parent chooses to smack or not smack their child's hand. It's not my business - and common sense understands the difference between that and violence.
Here is a letter I have just sent to my local paper.The concerns raised by K Glywn McInnes regarding Sue Bradford’s anti smacking bill are tragically real (Waikato Times March 13)Yet again politicians are about to set up law that undermines parental responsibility and accrues more power to the State.The Maori party ‘intellectuals’ will ironically help instigate the very opposite consequences to their desired outcome!Child abusers will simply ignore this law.Like all criminals they will get even more tricky and sadistic, while good parents will fear discipline will endanger their rights to their own children!In a fool hardy attempt to reduce child abuse the Maori party will actually undermine good parents who attempt to keep their kids off the streets and out of Jail!This law is worse than useless!It’s evil in sheepskin!Such is the nature of ill conceived socialism!As someone who has on one hand suffered abuse and on the other been lovingly disciplined, I see that Socialist’s cannot make this clear distinction as an indictment to their woolly headedness and an insane delusion to the powers they wield!And Sue Bradford and Pita Sharples are icons of State education!???Who voted for them?This is all part of our socialist nightmare!
(Off-thread, sorry PC):

Tim W, did you get my email I sent you yesterday? Couldn't remember your address after all this time, so took a stab ...

Just checking.
Abuse is not just what makes the nightly news Peter.

Smacking hurts children. It is abusive, both physically and emotionally. Even professional dog trainers know that PRAISE is the effective tool in training, not punishment. Parents who smack usually gradually increase the level of pain over a period of years to achieve the same response.

I do not for one moment believe in the 'black helicopter' conspiracy theory about this. What is disgusting about taking steps to reduce the terrible amount of child smacking/hitting that occurs? Bradford strikes me as a good example of a human being; even if you don't like her politics she spends a lot of her time helping others.

As someone who has an interest in early childood education - and I presume child welfare - I find your position on this astounding. No early childhood educator, on the internet at least, puts parents who smack on the 'good parents'list. In the words of one teacher "People who smack their kids are ignorant morons."

Do not bring my children into it -I never mentioned them and they have never been hit. I now have teenagers staying with me each weekend who I hope to influence positively. What is YOUR contribution?

You need to stop using the "statist - socialist-card" to spread your political motives and justify your own sins.

May we all be free from the ignorance of violence.
Ruth, can you please tell me where you found these comments:

"No early childhood educator, on the internet at least, puts parents who smack on the 'good parents' list."

and

"In the words of one teacher "People who smack their kids are ignorant morons.""

I think it's reprehensible that you could draw comparisons between dogs and children as you have in your last post. I daresay that the emotional harm caused by that would be far worse than any smack a child could be given.

Mitch
No Sus I didn't.Re send it to twikiriwhi@yahoo.co.nzI look forward to it!Cheers!
Ruth,Just to clarify where you’re coming from, beside your views on not smacking kids…May I inquire?Do you think “everyone is good on the inside?”Do you think it is ok to have kids without getting a marriage commitment first?Do you think It’s ok to live on the dole?Do you think primitive Maori culture is equal or better than Western civilization?Do you think it is ok for Maori to have special rights?Do you think it is ok for Maori to go back to their tribal lands to live even if there is no work there?Just yes or no answers will do.(or expound on them as you see fit)I am interested in seeing the sort of moral principles you have so as to make a better judgment of your thinking, and get a beter glimpse of the sort of person that thinks smacking is wrong.I suspect you will say “yes” to all or most of these questions.I will assume no response from you as an affirmative.These are important questions that anyone guiding teenagers needs to have solid answers too.regards Tim W
Global warming trek ends in frostbite
That tickled my funny-bone.
When the truth really **is** inconvenient
Uh, PC? Some of your facts are wrong. Try reading the Wikipedia article rather than getting all your ideas from a documentary.

I will summarise a few of the more glaring errors - there are many other more subtle errors which are misinterpretations rather than direct errors.

"There has been no warming since 1998."

WRONG. After necessarily averaging out yearly variations, a graph using five-year averages shows the temperature still increasing drastically.

WRONG. Ignoring history for the moment, CO2 causes warming because it is a greenhouse gas. This is easy to prove from quantum mechanics alone: CO2 absorbs photos in such as way as to decrease the escape of terrestrial thermal infrared radiation.

"There is no evidence ... that global warming is man-made, and certainly not with the mechanism for warming that is frequently cited by the warmists."

WRONG. Mainstream scientific opinion: "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human] greenhouse gas concentrations"

Anyway, that'll do for now ...
Luke H said...WRONG. After necessarily averaging out yearly variations, a graph using five-year averages shows the temperature still increasing drastically.

Can you tell me why 5-year averages and say not 4, 2, 1, 0, 6, 7 or anything running averages? Is the 5-year running averages a golden number or a rule of thump? That is where you got YOUR facts wrong.

To choose 5-year running averages just simply because it is a nice number is where the problems lies since most climate scientists don't know the proper method to use.

The time-series data is run thru a process (algorithm) that does (auto) regression on its own plus a running moving average at simultaneously. The algorithm selects the best regression coefficient and the best moving average length or order that best fit the data (meaning , the model order with very little error between prediction and the actual data).

If you run that data using the ARMA algorithm then you get the trend down, and the order of the moving average that best fit the historical signal (time-series) is not 5.
Ah Wikipedia,

The Oracle that is able to be edited by anyone. Including 20-something college students masquerading as professors...

You know, I've heard that claim from both sides. Now I want to see the peer reviewed papers in the SCIENTIFIC literature that show this. I want citations that I can actually go out and read!

Why? Because when scientists are getting death threats for the positions they hold, I start to wonder if their opposition (who have been curiously lax in condemning the death threats) actually has an argument.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml
Exactly right Robert, as I remind my students, wikipedia is not an academic source. As Luke seems to rely almost exclusively upon it, I really can not take his posts (or blog) seriously.

Sean.
You say some of my facts are wrong, Luke? As Robert suggests, perhaps you shouldn't rely so much on Wikipedia, and perhaps listen to some of those scientists in the documentary and elsewhere. What you yourself declare as correct is either incorrect according to many scientists, or at the very least highly uncertain.

1. You say: ""There has been no warming since 1998 -- WRONG."

Well, perhaps you might like to argue that with Professor Bob Carter, a paleoclimate researcher at James Cook University, and the figures of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Says Carter: "In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "

You can see the graph of 'Global average temperatures since 1998' produced by the Climate Research Unit, UKhere.

2. "just a tiny 3% of ... CO2 is attributable to humans - WRONG."

Well, rather than your simple 'back of the envelope' suggestion, perhaps you might like to argue with Dr Augie Auer, former professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming:"Water vapour is, by far & away, the most dominant and naturally-produced of all greenhouse gases, contributing to a massive 95% of the beneficial warming process. Within the remaining 5%, there isn’t much clout available for carbon dioxide; it only contributes a meagre 3.5% or so. And when this input is subdivided into naturally produced & anthropogenically sourced, just under 97% comes from Nature, just over 3% from mankind. This means that the human contribution of CO2 to the Earth’s greenhouse warming process is an inconsequential 0.12%. Even if CO2 doubled in the atmosphere due to man’s activity, its impact on greenhouse processes would remain miniscule.Furthermore, the efficiency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas does not increase with concentration, as the Al Gores of the world tell us. Its effectiveness obeys the law of diminishing returns. Only the first 150ppm or so is all that is needed for the planet’s greenhouse effect to operate near maximum. Additional carbon dioxide only serves as a spent force."

3. "The warmists say that CO2 causes warming. If that's so, there's no evidence [in history] - WRONG. Ignoring history for the moment, CO2 causes warming because it is a greenhouse gas. This is easy to prove from quantum mechanics alone..."

Crikey, what rationalism. Ignore history if you like, ignore the temperature record, and presumably ignore too Augie's point above, that "Water vapour is, by far & away, the most dominant and naturally-produced of all greenhouse gases, contributing to a massive 95% of the beneficial warming process. Within the remaining 5%, there isn’t much clout available for carbon dioxide ... Its effectiveness obeys the law of diminishing returns. Only the first 150ppm or so is all that is needed for the planet’s greenhouse effect to operate near maximum. Additional carbon dioxide only serves as a spent force."

4. ""There is no evidence ... that global warming is man-made, and certainly not with the mechanism for warming that is frequently cited by the warmists." - WRONG. Mainstream scientific opinion [says]..."

Actually "Mainstream scientific opinion" doesn't say what you've said; the Summary for Policymakers (written by bureaucrats and politicians) says that, based on science that is yet to be officially released.

Based on that same science, Christopher Monckton says, "The panic is officially over."

Based on that same science, Dr Vincent Gray notes the only warming since mid-century occurred from 1978 to 1998 (and only on the surface, not in the troposphere), and "the actual warming involved over this short period of 1978 to 1998 was 0.53ºC. The above statement [the one quoted by you, Luke] considers that it is "very likely" that most of this 0.53ºC was caused by anthropogenic (human-induced) greenhouse gas increases. “Most” of this would be between 0.3ºC and 0.5ºC, the amount that the statement considers to be due to human influence."

That's enough for now? Yes, I think it probably is. Forget Wikipedia, and go and argue with those scientists.
Sean: Exactly right Robert, as I remind my students, wikipedia is not an academic source. As Luke seems to rely almost exclusively upon it, I really can not take his posts (or blog) seriously.

Why not? Try finding at least one post on our blog. where we get our facts wrong, or solely use wikipedia. Luke and I have multiple academic degrees between us and we are well aware what constitutes an acceptable academic source. Wikipedia is always a good starting point for research, as almost everything on it is verifiable and cites external sources.

Either justify your claim or retract it. Just because you disagree with one comment by Luke is no reason to attack the credibility of our whole blog.
Phil,

1)What am I to retract? I have offered nothing other than my own personal assessment. I simply said that I am personally unimpressed with the small sampling I have tried thus fare. I have correctly and accurately stated the content of my own opinion.

2) I refuse to play the "appeal to authority" game.

3) Why should I actively look for factual errors on your blog, when it appears that look is prepared to post them over here?

4) Phil, no one likes a bully.

5)I have just examined your blog more closely. It lacks enough insight for me to personally bother with. But, if others find it useful, good on them and good on you!

Sean.
Sean:1) It may be an accurate assessment of your own opinion. It is very far indeed from an accurate assessment of reality to claim that Luke "seems to rely almost exclusively on Wikipedia". That's utterly false.2) I'm not claiming to be an authority. Luke and I both know that Wikipedia is not considered an an acceptable source for academic work (nothwithstanding that some of my assigned textbooks quote from it). You're implying that we don't know that.3) Because you've groundlessly accused us of posting facutal errors on it.4) Who's the bully? I'm just defending myself from a personal attack on my credibility.5) Indeeed, many people find it useful. I'm sorry that you don't.
I've written an article summarising my response to this article, including:

*A demonstration that there has been NO CHANGE in the warming trend since 1998

* A demonstration that a 5-year average is no different (Falafulu)

*Dr Augie Auer's statements about the perecentage effect of H2) compared to CO2 is incorrect

*The statement "Only the first 150ppm or so is all that is needed for the planet’s greenhouse effect to operate near maximum" is apparently a falsehood.

Also, my article has proper academic references rather than Wikipedia (Shaun, Robert).
Guys, That water vapour makes up a portion of the gaseous heat trapping reservoir seems irrelevant. It condenses and falls, carrying its heat load with it. If it falls on an icecap, it is snow and helps add to the volume of global ice. There have been many studies that suggest that the Greenland ice cap is dwindling faster than modelled by the warmists of a few years ago. The northern multiyear ice has nearly disappeared. The Antarctic is losing vast chunks of ice, notably state sized chunks of the Ross Ice Shelf. Whatever the cause, the loss of these ice masses will certainly limit their capacity to cool the surrounding waters. Their thaw will open more dark water to the sun and absorb more heat, thus accelerating the trend. The loss of the ice will increase sea level. Some say that that increase could approach 200 feet. These events did not occur during the medieval warming. The Holocene period lacked human metropolitan areas along the world's coastlines. It is therefore far less important. Rather than argue the data, what avenues do you suggest we take to deal with an event that could cause massive forced migration, privation, wars and starvation, should it occur. Just a though. pgray
Guys, It seems irrelevent to discuss the heat trapping ability of water vapor. It condenses and falls, taking its heat with it. If it falls on an icecap, it adds to it. If it does not, it eventually returns to the sea. the ice reflects the sun's rays. The dark waters absorb more of the sun's heat. The world icecaps are receding. The Greenland cap is declining faster than the warmist models in use in 2007 predicted. The northern polar multiyear ice is significantly less than at any time in the human experience. The Northwest passage is navigable. State sized chunks of Antarctic ice are breaking off, notably from the Ross Ice Shelf. The glaciers on Kilamanjaro and the Mountains of the Moon are gone. Some say that the loss of the remaining ice may raise sea level by 200 feet, resulting in massive forced migration, war and widespread starvation. These events did not occur in the medieval warming. Whether they occurred during the Holocene is immaterial, as there were no metropolitan areas on the world's coastline. How do you propose to respond to this threat?
Jorgine Boomer House - Frank Lloyd Wright
What a bloody eyesore. It blends into the environment like a dogshit blends into a polished concrete floor.

Actually it looks like the Millenium Falcon. You'd have to be a wookie to wanna live in it.
Wrong Steve, it does blend into the environment. Look at the rocks in the background, rugged and sharp, just like the house.

The house does fail because it has triangles in it. Ugh, nothing wastes space like triangle, I can't stand them.
Is this building extant? When my architect husband and I were designing our desert home south of Tucson, I pulled THE NATURAL HOUSE from his bookshelf. The Boomer House had me smitten from the first photo. I had no idea it still existed just a couple of hours away! We dissected the plan and used the rooflines to create a house and separate guesthouse/studio out of concrete block, steel and glass (no wood--the termites here are horrendous). The engineering and construction were a nightmare, but the house is pretty much everything I wanted. the triangles add big bucks to the cost, but they are so pleasing to the eye, I wouldn't change them. I would, however, confine them to the roof and keep the underlying building in right angles.
Time for building authorities to start wriggling
I know you have your tongue planted in your cheek to some extent here PC, but are you actually suggesting that the Leaky Building Syndrome (TM) is ultimately the fault of BIA/BRANZ in your esteem?

The tacit suggestion is that the evil forces of beaurocracy imposed ultimately flawed building methods on architects/builders, and encouraged them (by way of BRANZ certification) to use unsuitable materials.

It is a tad disingenuous to suggest to a lay audience that at some point prior to the LBS 'calamity' the mailed fist of the State descended upon the building industry and said 'you can only build this way'. Things have certainly tightened up POST-LBS (viz new E2, etc) but at the end of the day, the truth is certain people will always attempt to build housing cheaper, cut any corners they can get away with, and do it faster in order to maximise profit when flicking said property off at a later date.

At no time did BIA/BRANZ change the laws of physics (to the best of my knowledge). It is my belief that the architect is ultimately responsible for the weatherproofing of the building in design, solidly backed up by frequent and rigorous site supervision, with TA inspection as a final backstop.

It is obviously way cheaper for a developer to commission a cookie-cutter multi-unit proposal from a draughting office, get an accountant to project manage the job by ringing subtrades separately, and sourcing materials separately according to market price at the time. It's just way, way more risky. And you'll find very few leaky buildings eventuating from the former method, and a large amount from the latter.

Bottom line is that I just don't by the 'Well, they said we could' defence, or conversely 'They didn't say we couldn't, so it's their fault'.

DenMT
Tongue in cheek? Moi?

I do sometimes try to soften the blow with humour, but there's usually a serious point, as there is here.

Don't you think its odd that those responsible for the materials and methods that failed so spectacularly have so far escaped retribution, while those who specified, installed and inspected them have so far been required to pick up the tab instead (a tab, incidentally, that has been made far worse by subsequent knee-jerk regulation)?

Den, your suggestion that the problems only occurred at the bottom end of the market, at the cookie-cutter end, are belied by the number of 'higher-end developments also caught up.

The problems occurred in projects designed by both draughtsmen and registered architects, and built both by 'ducking and diving' subbies and by registered master builders.

Problems occurred across the range of jobs, so your suggestion that it was brought about by "cutting corners" just doesn't fit the evidence, nor does your intimation that if only everyone had used registered architects they would all have been fine.

It just ain't so. I've visited jobs built by both that exhibit the same problems found elsewhere.

What all the problem projects had in common is this:** all buyers relied in the main on council consents as a reliable indicator of fitness -- not something one would do when buying a car,for example.** most in the industry relied upon standards and codes provided by SANZ and BIA, and on materials and methods certified by BRANZ. (Dryframe for one example; harditex window details for another)

That state involvement gave almost everyone a false sense of omniscience about the security of the methods and materials certified, and about the competence of the inspections.

Councils have been held liable for the inspections, but those responsible for issuing accreditation certificates for materials or methods that were relied upon by competent professionals but were subsequently found to be in adequate, have so far escaped opprobrium. So too have the manufacturers who issued those details that were relied upon, and the materials that failed.

Most of those builders, designers and developers were not corner-cutting; they were competent professionals who relied upon details that were issued by manufacturers who haven't stood behind them; on accredited methods and materials that the accreditation agency has now washed its hands of; on materials that the standards authority now wishes it hadn't allowed (but did) ... and in the end the ones who are paying are not those suppliers, agencies or authorities, but those builders and designers, and the council inspectors who for the most part did as much as they were able to at the time.
Denmt said "but at the end of the day, the truth is certain people will always attempt to build housing cheaper, cut any corners they can get away with, and do it faster in order to maximise profit"

Yes builders have and always did build like this.

The only change was in the building act which was controlled by BIA.

On a funnier note.Was playing golf in a trades day. One hole was sponsored by James Hardie. Good looking girl looking after the display at the hole introduces herself and asks "do we know anything about James Hardie and Villa board" they were demonstrating. Builder who I was with responds with "Yeah I know about James Hardie. Your the company that sold Asbestos Fibre Cement board killing people, but walked away from responsibility. Your the company that sold exterior cladding for homes that leaks, but walked away from. Yeah I know about your company" The girl didn't have much more to say after that
I didn't mean for my comment to come off as a subtle ad for registered architects - I was using 'architect' as a catch-all for 'diligent designer'. As you well know, there are plenty of non-architects who fall into this category.

My direct knowledge of leaky-building jobs thus far is largely restricted to low-end cases such as I mentioned, and I have yet to hear of a job whereby diligent design was done, sound building practice used, and TA inspections carried out without a hitch. In that scenario one could well surmise that something was awry with the materials, or the building practice.

But the truth is that the one constant across so many 'Leaky Buildings'(TM) has been EIFS systems and the number of offices who now iwll not touch them is staggering. One can say that BRANZ in particular may have been too swift to certify some of them, and BIA guidelines as to their use may have allowed too many loopholes for quick-and-dirty approaches to construction, but the reality is that the system is easy to detail wrong and build wrong. And this is what happened in a number of the jobs I have knowledge of.

As for your point that:

** all buyers relied in the main on council consents as a reliable indicator of fitness -- not something one would do when buying a car, for example.

...I fail to see how ordinary folks can be expected to have the requisite knowledge to assess detail sheets for possible problem areas. And the suggestion that they should pay third-party private organisations for plan-checks just for peace of mind takes the onus off designers to properly do their job. And ADMINISTER THE CONTRACT. Architects/designers who don't carry out site supervision are asking for their work to be undone. It needs to be carefully explained to clients that this isn't just another way of extracting dosh out of them.

As a final note, I would have thought that with your advocacy of the use of common-law principles, that passing the buck all the way down the line to BIA/BRANZ would feel mighty sketchy... And saying 'well, they wouldn't exist in a libertarian paradigm' doesn't really cut it!

DenMT
Warming? It's about politics, stupid.
It's another cultural revolution except this time it's global. Sit back and wait for the Green Guards to come calling.
Has apartheid gone from the curriculum?
Hoshino Wedding Chapel - Karuizawa, Japan - Kendrick Bangs Kellogg Architects
"What have you got?"
I nearly choked on my coffee when I read that National has no problem with income related rents this morning. Lets hope they at least expand the system to include houses not owned by the state, which might at least get the state out of building and owning the houses. Are tax cuts seriously about to be abandoned?
I see Blairs had enough of them and is going his own way...;-)

http://blairmulholland.typepad.com/mulholland_drive/
David Cameron does the same by announcing a tax on aviation to combat climate change!
Your job for today: Watch THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE
I can't recommend this programme highly enough. There is so much ammunition in it for letters to the editor, opinion-editorials, etc., that it is absolutely required viewing for all global warming skeptics/heretics. The best part for me was when the co-founder of Greenpeace admitted that factions of the environmentalist movement are anti-human. Send the link to this programme to all your friends, especially those who had all their buttons pressed by Al Gore's "documentary".
How ironic that right at the end is a promo for another BBC (bbc-?) documentary staright afterwards which tests how "green" politicians REALLY are.

sigh.

g
76 minutes of truth and common sense!! I always had the firm belief that the environmentalists were cranks, but it seems they have a profitable agenda by being very successful in conning finance from governments.This doco should be sent on to all your friends. Let's start a crusade with letters to the Editor. This is too important to just let slide!
I have a different take on this documentary. While it made some good points, the link between CO2 and climate change isn't going anywhere.

More at Pacific Empire
Photo by Jack Scoresby
'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - NOW ONLINE
Just watched it a second time and its brilliant! It needs publicizing as widely as possible.

I've posted it to Leighton Smith and others and encourage everyone to do likewise with everyone they know.

This would be great to put onto DVD and give out as a freebee....maybe a joint project for Libz,ACT,NBRT,Climate coalition etc....?
Brilliant. We must ask one of the major television networks to air this programme.

Julian Darby
Wait. So all this bollocks and mayhem and propaganda on climate change, and you're telling me it's THATCHER'S FAULT?!!!!!!!

My whole world has turned upside down. Excuse me for a while, I need to go sit in the corner, curl up in the foetal position and suck my thumb...
Marx was right about the working class being eploited but for the wrong reasons.

They are exploited by the Socialists/Communists, and by the Governments, and by the Union Leaders, and by the unproductive...

They are not exploited by the business people - they are not eploited by the productive, not by the Capitalists.

It's upside down, like a lot of the world.

The productive Capitalists are the liberators of the working class, not their enemy.
Here is an url that you can send to friends and family that will direct them to the video "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

http://gorelied.notlong.com

For more information on the documentary you can go here.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
It turns out the director is a Marxist of the old school...one that believed that science and innovation will BENEFIT mankind and in power socialism...the horror! ;-0

So the old Left has arse fucked the "new Left"....oh the imagery!

:-0
I have said here in many occasions and everywhere in blogosphere that when you start with a wrong formulations and assumptions of a particular mathematical model, then of course you would end up with the wrong conclusions. Not only that, the model might work well in a specific narrow domain, but fail to generalize in the wider domain. This is exactly what Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA, mentioned in the The Great Global Warming Swindle video.
"Demonising drugs does more harm than good"
Off topic but don't miss seeing this AGW doco on Google video that was on BBC a few days back.It puts the sceptics side and rocks!

I challenge any parent - or social worker who has dealt with 'at risk' youth to say drugs are good and should be legal.

In fact the Auckland Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring a luncheon and talk by Celia Lashlie about it - by pure chance...
Anonymous, I accept your challenge.

Drugs are good and should be legal.

Like any technology, mood alteration is neither good nor bad intrinsically. It depends on how you use the technology. "It’s not the drugs, it’s how we’re taking them."
Its a technological and developmental problem,the way to deal with the problems of current drugs is to utilise the best neuroscience and technology to develop better ones.An analogy can be made with early aviation,most of the technocal developments that matured the aeroplane as a viable technology occured between 1908 and 1912 after the wright brothers went to Paris and every man aqnd his dog thought "I can do that".Over 30000 desings were tried and the ones whose pilots survived became the modern aeroplane,through a pretty ruthless process of natural selection process.Most of the great aviators of the 20th century were children during this time period which had a great insperational effect and now aviation is the safest form of travel.Christianity is a huge driving force behind the moral histeria pumped out by morons since the womans temperance movement managed to get cocain prohibited in 1914.Once christianity is signifacanty deminished in New Zealand in the future then the inane hiterics about drugs will diminish.
Ok Richard - let me check with the ACOC and maybe you can tell business leaders how narcotic drugs and hitting kids benefits society. I somehow doubt they will be interested.

Lashlie constantly talks about the need for heroes in the lives of our youth. As an admirer of Rand I am sure you can relate to that sentiment. The real answer to youth suicide,offending and imprisonment lies in good men stepping up to the plate and presenting themselves as positive influences to youth -- whether you have children or not.

Our challenge is to put heroes into the lives of young people - people who will provide them with positive rites of passage - not potentially fatal ones such as drugs and alcohol.

You may say you only talk of adults - but we all know drug abuse starts at about 14 years of age - as it did with Burton - without the influence of violence provoking drugs an articulate, intelligent fellow. No one wakes up in the morning and says "Hey, I think I'll be a drug addict".

Many intelligent men in the Libertarian group could do so much to help our dissaffected youth - but they choose to ignore the facts and push their pro-drug barrow instead.
Anonymous, what's your point?

Do you think that it's your business what I choose to do in my free time?

Do you think that banning drugs will stop drug abuse starting at about 14 years of age?

Do you think that prohibitionists like Jim Anderton, Peter Dunne and Jacqui Dean are "heroes in the lives of our youth"?

What facts are the ones you allege I choose to ignore?

Hey, I often wake up in the morning and think I'll be a drug addict - it's a lifestyle choice.
"The real answer to youth suicide,offending and imprisonment lies in good men stepping up to the plate and presenting themselves as positive influences to youth"

Yeah, right. That'd be the same men who daren't risk having anything to do with other people's kids because of the very real risk of accusations of paedophilia etc by rabid feminazis?It'll be a cold day in hell before I risk my reputation and my liberty, before I "step up to the plate" and become involved with other people's kids.The "real answer" to youth suicide and offending and imprisonment is for parents to take responsibility for their kids--and for the law to support them in that.
Anon (Ruth) said...Many intelligent men in the Libertarian group could do so much to help OUR disaffected youth.

Who's OUR or WE Ruth ?
Saw numerous people (professional, non welfare abusing, taxpaying, average people) using mind altering substnaces of the legal and illegal kind on the weekend.

Didn't hurt anyone, didn't steal anything.. why should they be criminalised for what they are putting into their own bodies again?

And please don't give me the "won't someone please think of the children " bullshit again.

One does not have to be a drug addict to use substances. Out of all the people I know who use various substances, not a single one who uses illicits has a problem.

Though I know loads of people who have problems with legal substances.

Make of that what you will.

With all these arguments of drug abuse starting at young ages - you seem to ignore the fact, that these drugs are already illegal, and its still happening. Do you honestly think treating these 14 year olds as criminals, throwing them in with car theives and rapists is really going to help them?

I think not..
I want to live in a society that protects kids from drugs, a society that doesn't let dealers prey on the vunerable and weak. Societies too soft on dealers. They ruin people's lives and society has to pick up the pieces, yet dealers can make hundreds of thousands of dollars. I administer the lethal injection to them myself with no remorse.
Anonymous Ruth said ...I want to live in a society that protects kids from drugs, a society that doesn't let dealers prey on the vunerable and weak.

Ruth, dealers exist because of the ban. Lift the ban and the dealers simply disappear.
"I administer the lethal injection to them myself with no remorse."

Almost Noone is preyed upon in the drug industry. It is all consensual, those that are preyed on are only exploited because they ahve no legal protections under prohibition.

Your purtainical bullshit only continues this cycle.

(end rant)
Ironic, isn't it, that the only commenter here to have accused another commenter of advocating genocide is the only person here to have actually expressed a wish to kill people.
AnonyRuth,

I work for a major investment bank at the heart of Canary Wharf, London, and I can tell you that rivers of cocaine run through London's financial heartland. I don't do drugs myself, but you'd have to be blind not to see it.

These are sophisticated middle-class people, some earning eye-wateringly high salaries, and they do it by choice. This demand isn't going to go away.

So what are you going to do? Keep it illegal and all you get are teenage gang members shooting each other on council estates. These gangs feed on the illicit drug trade and actively recruit young boys so as to minimize liability. That's what your drug laws have bought you.
'Methamphetamine is an Evil Drug' - Pope Anderton the turd.

An commentary on the past few days of drug policy h t t p ://mildgreens.blogspot.com/2007/03/national-drug-policy-crock-of-shite.html